From your reply, I don't think you yet grasp the differences in emotions and reasoned, logical life determining decisions. Emotions are from the 'older' part of the brain, the amygdala--the 'cave-man view' you mention, the survival of the fittest of your referral. From a time in which the age of 30 was elderly. There was not always sufficient time to arrive at reasoned and logical decisions when faced with a giant bear or saber toothed tiger. Your sympathetic nervous system and the emotions triggered by it, or vice versa, had as much to do with your immediate survival if not more than your ability to reason. Your reason might bring you to the recognition that you needed to keep with you something sharp like a spear for the next encounter, but your emotional 'fight or flight' response is what saved you in the first encounter. That sympathetic nervous system and associated emotions is still a significant part of our makeup and can be triggered by events or things or even imaginings that in today's world are not life threatening to us, yet allowing such to control our responses can be very dangerous and irrational. We can teach ourselves how to control and logically assess that part of ourselves to our advantage, but not if we believe that there are some pieces of it that we should or can hang on to and let affect us in it's old, normal ways.

The enlightenment you make reference to can be traced to Locke and Smith and the Founders, those that through reason arrived at the opinion that men have individual rights rather than group or individual dispensations from their rulers and hereditary betters. Rand took it further and established the etymology and metaphysics upon which to base such a way of dealing with the realities of the world and the emotions of our 'older' brains amongst many other parts of the philosophy and our rights to self interest.

Loving all humanity as your brothers and sisters is dangerously close to one of the most dangerous and evil concepts of all of mankind's history, altruism, whether you also recognize them as individual or the collective whole. As to a restriction of the initiation of force against others as a form of honor to 'our brothers and sisters', it's not about honor--it's about the recognition that your assertion and defense of the right to life and the products of your mind can only be morally justified if the same is true for all others.

Your approach sounds much like others I've encountered that although learning about Objectivism and sensing the rightness of it, but reluctant to give up their reliance on a life's teachings of christ's love and forgiveness of others' failings and a further reliance that there is more than just this life, then attempt to either modify what they've learned of Objectivism to fit more closely with their religious beliefs or try to modify their way of thinking or internal terminology to fit some of Objectivism's principles. Enough to convince themselves that they can hang on to ingrained teachings and beliefs.

But key to Objectivism is looking at the world of reality as it is, not as one wishes it to be because of beliefs not based on empirical evidence, rationally and logically integrated into the knowledge base from which to make decisions of life in this reality.

If one is defined as a Christian, that assumes they believe in Christ as the son of God and that Christ died to forgive all believers of their perceived sins against Gods law and against his fellow man. However, can a person believe that there is a greater power that can and does guide ones life, without believing in Christ? No matter how illogical and un-objective that belief is. Can the human mind wrap itself around that illogical belief and still take the oath? I surely am not smart enough to answer that question.

Christians believe in Christ, yes? Turning the other cheek, judge lest you be judged, you are your brother's keeper etc.? Those views are antithetical to Objectivism, to be perfectly honest. The trouble is you will find yourself constantly pulled toward the seduction of altruism and the sanction of the victim, as if by an incomprehensible magnet, and you won't know why. The reason is that you will have subconscious beliefs that tell you self-sacrifice is a noble ideal.

As John Lithgow says in Interstellar, "don't trust the right thing done for the wrong reason".

From what I understand about objectivism is facts being proven and to me science has proven to me it is at point of conception. With this being said two intelligent people can read the same material and come up with two opinion. As I stated there is no right or wrong just our opinion. If I'm to tell a woman what is right or wrong then I'm taking the place of judge or a mystic. I am neither

I was hunting on the run with the pack when I left my upper partial in the long neck of a diplotocus. All the younger allobrats were laughing at me during the whole 11 miles it took before that behemoth slowed down, bled out and dropped. While the others feasted I retrieved my partial and wandered off to have a good cry. That's when my dental hygienist pterodactyl flapped down to pick my teeth (there's a theory that the T-Rex received such service.). While I chewed on the little fella I said, "Next time I want a partial that fits." Oops, for him there is no next time. Not to worry. There's more flapping around where he came from. .

What's the matter with everyone, "can't you walk and chew gum." Or, a Revolutionary and a Philosopher and/or and "Walker between the Worlds". What is everyone here going to trip and kill themselves?

We can be Rational/Logical and Creative and Imagative Humans with private moments of faith. Ayn Rand was trying to create the "ubermench" for Atlas Shrugged. We all have alittle John Galt in us maybe some more than others. Some of us have the desire to soar above or walk in a more perfect world. Try as we might in the "Atlas Shrugged" path we a missing the personages that could facilitate the initial creation of the Gulch. We don't have churches to worship in the Gulch. We can create our own sanctuaries, Ayn Rand said nothing about that. Much of the Gulch is left up to our imaginations.

Well put.

Before you can get to “God's Word” you must pass the hurdles of the presentation of (1) an intelligible definition of a supernatural being and (2) adduce credible evidence to support the proposition. So far, though, nobody so far has been able to get past (1), which makes an objective study of the “God's Word” some distance off.

I'm glad I'm not the only bionic man in the Gulch. I've got 4 (count 'em) appliances keeping me running. Even so, I can't jump over 8 foot walls. Hell, I can't even jump over 3 inch mounds.

That's a common response. When challenged as to at what point abortion is no longer acceptable, the answer is "that doesn't happen so we don't have to talk about it". Of course, we actually do have to understand the limits of our approach to the subject.

The life of the child is always a "maybe" until it is born. With no complications the overwhelming odds are that it will survive the birth. In any case the life of the child must be considered by the mother. I am not saying that government should limit her choice but it is the child who has to most to lose in most cases and yet the child is not consulted as to what choice he or she would make.

Me dino like sir, sir. You no diss dino.

No.

Grrr!

Grrr!

I'm old and sometimes use those old words.

I maintain an open mind, and upon the presentation of (1) an intelligible definition of a supernatural being and (2) credible evidence to support the proposition, then I would entertain the concept. So far, though, nobody so far has been able to get past (1).

But, back to my question: Do you agree with the murders by your god or somehow find them acceptable?

I put it on Kaila's comment intentionally. It is a quote from the movie Meet the Fockers. In the movie its delivered by Deniro regarding Greg Focker saying you can milk anything.

It's pretty self evident in my post. Understanding that I am flawed and therefore I am not able to judge others. I'm sorry if this is to confusing for you.

Yeh, all that philosophical stuff. :)

plus one for "adduce" -- hadn't heard that one for awhile!!! -- j

.

that hit my Favorites bell, at the top of the tower, sir!!! -- j

.

It's free will that defines man. It is a key point that we all can agree upon. There are a number of Christians in the Gulch that I'd love to have discussions with outside of the Gulch.

interesting -- this reply is "hung on" Kaila's comment above,

about the oath. . curious. . who's Greg? -- j

.

recently, I heard that a fertilized egg might implant in the abdomen

of a man, allowing him to carry the child. . interesting wrinkle

on the beginning of life as a zygote. -- j

.